bug#14734: 24.3.50; REGRESSION: defadvice broken wrt doc strings (C-h f)

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> > Let me add that advice.el is not yet obsolete,
> >> Indeed, but it's only a question of time.
> > So much for the argument about "backward compatibility".
> 
> What kind of ass comment is that?

?

> You know full well that "obsolete" does not mean "not backward
> compatible".

An argument was made that the REimplementation of something that
worked well was done (was necessary?) to allow for backward
compatibility.  I was speaking to that argument.

If that is really the reason for reimplementing the old, and
the old is slated for obsolescence, then that extra "backward
compatibility" work, which degrades the user experience, would
not seem to be worth much, would it?

I have my doubts that providing "backward compatibility" was
the reason for the reimplementation, but I have no special
insight into the reason.  Clearly, someone went to some trouble
to code the old anew, for some reason.

The old code was already backward compatible, by definition.
What was the reason that the `C-h f' behavior needed to change
so negatively?  Please don't say that it is a gift of backward
compatibility.